" If the good thing to do varies because of a set of circumstances, then that doesn't imply morality is not objective.

Just because right and wrong answers exist to moral questions does not imply any blanket statements about morality are true.

For example, this blanket statement "water always freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit" is actually false. The freezing point is different if we tweak some of the circumstances (such as if the water is being stirred, if it contains salt, if it is at a different altitude, etc). Changing those circumstances doesn't make the above claim less "objective".Similarly, changing circumstances to moral questions wouldn't make it less objective either.

In short, objective morality just tells us there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, it doesn't tell us that circumstances are irrelevant.A279;"

" If the good thing to do varies because of a set of circumstances, then that doesn't imply morality is not objective.

Just because right and wrong answers exist to moral questions does not imply any blanket statements about morality are true.

For example, this blanket statement "water always freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit" is actually false. The freezing point is different if we tweak some of the circumstances (such as if the water is being stirred, if it contains salt, if it is at a different altitude, etc). Changing those circumstances doesn't make the above claim less "objective".Similarly, changing circumstances to moral questions wouldn't make it less objective either.

In short, objective morality just tells us there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, it doesn't tell us that circumstances are irrelevant.A279;"

There is a difference between objective morality, and absolute morality.

Also, I get what you are saying. When people say "rape is wrong" that isn't necessarily true. What if there was one woman left on earth and she didn't want to have sex, but if she wasn't raped, the species would crumble? I would say "sorry bitch, I'm keeping my species alive, now drop your trousers" lol

" If the good thing to do varies because of a set of circumstances, then that doesn't imply morality is not objective.

Just because right and wrong answers exist to moral questions does not imply any blanket statements about morality are true.

For example, this blanket statement "water always freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit" is actually false. The freezing point is different if we tweak some of the circumstances (such as if the water is being stirred, if it contains salt, if it is at a different altitude, etc). Changing those circumstances doesn't make the above claim less "objective".Similarly, changing circumstances to moral questions wouldn't make it less objective either.

In short, objective morality just tells us there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, it doesn't tell us that circumstances are irrelevant.A279;"

Well, there seems to be a difference between factual propositions and moral propositions.

One is about how thing are. Since there exist an objective reality, which is independent of human opinion, there are right and wrong answers to is-questions.

The other is about how things ought to be. I am not aware of any system that establishes objective moral facts independent of human opinion. If such system does indeed exist, please do tell.

" If the good thing to do varies because of a set of circumstances, then that doesn't imply morality is not objective.

Just because right and wrong answers exist to moral questions does not imply any blanket statements about morality are true.

For example, this blanket statement "water always freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit" is actually false. The freezing point is different if we tweak some of the circumstances (such as if the water is being stirred, if it contains salt, if it is at a different altitude, etc). Changing those circumstances doesn't make the above claim less "objective".Similarly, changing circumstances to moral questions wouldn't make it less objective either.

In short, objective morality just tells us there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, it doesn't tell us that circumstances are irrelevant.A279;"

It basically holds that no 'feature' is intrinsically right or wrong-making, or even significant, in all situations. For example, if you shot me in the head while I was lying when playing poker, it doesn't seem to be the case that I was doing anything wrong, nor does it seem to be that the fact that I was lying has any moral significance (assuming my lies are not provoking my murder). I believe a moral particularist would respond to the idea that there are 'exceptions' as the affirmation that his position is correct - principles with exceptions are more rules of thumb than principles.